Laserfiche WebLink
j-- ' _ __��� �� _ � ' �._� __��, _� t�.�::-,:_:�_ `:i ._� _ �_----- ----- =`� - ry-'�_.-___- �' e�---•�zi _ � ---- --__ � - --' -�-- - <br />� <br />^ I <br />� I <br />Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 <br />Special Meeting Page 10 <br />Highway 10 came into being. He suggested dividing County Road I so that traffic could <br />enter the Walgreen facility from the left only. This would prevent cars coming down <br />Eastwood from turning into the facility and causing a traffic bottleneck in this area. <br />Associate Ericson told Johnson Ramsey County had received a copy of the development <br />plan for informational purposes. The City is looking for some typ� of input from the <br />Coun-ry for the Walgr�en development. <br />1VIr. Cunningham told the Commission as the developer he would be reluctant to accept <br />the developm�nt condition that there be a right-in right-out turn scenario established for <br />Countiy Road I. <br />Assoceate �ricson told the Commission it might not be the City's choice because of the <br />fact that County Road I is a count�j road. He added the City would not force this type of a <br />condition on the developer or the site plan. <br />Mr. �he�n added the spacing between Walgreen's main acc�ss, the Mounds View Cenier <br />access, and the Highway 10 intersection all conform to the spacing specifications that have <br />been established by MnDOT. <br />Chairperson Peterson commented the light timing cycle on Highway 10's tra.ffic signals <br />should be modified to improve the traffic flow through Mounds View. <br />Chairperson I'eterson suggested the discussion get back to the subject of the "big <br />picture," this being commercial development versus residential on the corner properties <br />that are being considered for the Walgreen development. He added there are some early <br />leanings that have surfaced in the community meetings. It seems like the citizens want any <br />commercial developments to take place on the Highway 10 corridor and any residential <br />developments to take place off of the Highway 10 comdor. The City needs to improve its <br />tax base. <br />Commissioner Obert, again, emphasized the importance of addressing the question of <br />decreasing property values and addressing the traffic safety issues within the City. <br />Commissioner Brasaemle readdressed the question: "Is this the appropriate piece of <br />properiy for his development?" He said he did not have a good answer for this question <br />and probably wouldn't have one until after the ne� Comprehensive Plan Update meeting, <br />where this particular piece of property was going to be discussed in regards to its fit in the <br />overall Comprehensive Plan. <br />Chairperson Peterson told the Commission one of the comments th�e citizens have been <br />making at the community meetings concerning the Comprehensive Plan Update is they <br />have no interest in having any more commercial businesses along County Road I. The <br />citizens are saying that nobody should be forced out of their homes on Highway 10 to <br />